blackthorne

Why, the unreliability of memory of course! Duh.

Is that so? How do you know that? If you're looking for reliable traditions you probably won't find them. In any case, one would think, had they been written by real eyewitnesses, that we'd at the very least then, have some sort of actual portrait of the man, maybe myth, and certainly legend. Interests, physical profile, health, the opinions of him held by his peers, enemies, and family would certainly help. Not to mention, the inclusion of round characters, as opposed to static ones. Real biographies rarely ever treat significant figures in one's ministry (Jesus') with the lack of depth as they do in the Bible, as for example, with Judas. Much like a bad, unoriginal movie, its characters lack any real depth, with its story acting as essentially plot-driven, with all the necessary devices in place to affirm the the inevitable, and ultimately propitious yet generic ending, with good triumphing over evil, the bad having 'got' what's coming to them, yadda yadda yadda. Basically, something akin to your standard Jerry Bruckheimer crapfest. No offense to you or anything, but it's just not my kinda bag.

Well, not all other stories of other historical figures are riddled with bodily resurrections, coalitional zombie bacchanals, talking angels on earth, et cetera, et cetera. Fiction is a logical component of any narrative, or story anyhow. Why should the fictional aspects be treated any differently than any other number of mythical narratives? To clarify, I'm not a Jesus myther. It's not the man I find to be ahistorical, but the events surrounding his ministry that most certainly are.

Doctor X

A rather significant difference, particularly when written by non-witnesses.

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, wrong. Lk is quite explicit about not being a witness. Anyways, if witnesses, one would have to explain why Mt and Lk rewrite and depart from Mk, why Mt and Lk have Junior born about ten years appart, travel in different directions, Judas hang himself versus explode . . . et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum.

Given the dating, it is quite a bit like writing about Prohibition now without the benefit of a library or internet.

Wrong again, see above.

Actually, today it is much shorter, with the rate limiting step consisting of the quality of the author. "Back in the day," indeed, writing was quite a laborious procedure which means those who wrote wrote for an audience. This might very well explain the difference in theology between the Synoptic authors and, certainly, Jn.

Which is, of course, why no one other than yourself used it.

Yet we have very good indications. Incidently:

we do not really know what happened to Paul and when, exactly, he died. This is a reasonable "guestimate."

Since he was not, and specifically states he was not, a witness, this rather undercuts your argument.

Unfortunately "decades" does the job well enough, particularly when you do not have much by way of sources--witnesses. Most interesting is that the development of a philosophy/religion occurs within years--indeed, if one thing analysis of possible sources of the Synoptics show--your "proto-Mks," "Passion Narratives," "Qs," and all of that--not to mention Acts trying to "Paulize" Peter while "Petrifying" Paul--quite a number of independent movements existed.

Indeed, Mk, Mt, Lk, and Jn clearly despise the disciples and take great pains to ridicule them.

So . . . with such diversity so soon . . . decades proves most important.

I am not certain what "you" would accept, but "I" would certainly desire some independent confirmation.

--J.D.

[Edited for scribal errors.--Ed.]

Iasion

Greetings Magus,

Because it is myth and religious polemic.

Same reason the Book of Mormon is not enough for us to believe in the angel Moroni (or do you believe that too?)


I have 20 or more books in my library which talk about the life of Hercules - does that make him historical?


Some of those "books" are no more than a page or so.
Most of those "books" are from centuries before Jesus and make no mention of him.
But the books closest in time to the alleged Jesus have no mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth.


Rubbish.

The OT makes the majority and makes has no bibliographic information about Jesus.
The earliest Christian writings (Paul's) has NO bibliographic details of Jesus - merely vague spiritual conceptions.
The next layer of Christian writings, the epistles, have NO bibliographic details of Jesus.

The Gospels, and their bibliographic info on Jesus, were unknown to the early Christians.

The Gospel of Mark is almost universally agreed to have been the first written, and it was not even by an apostle. Indeed, it was probably wrtten by an unknown Roman author who had never even been to Jerusalem - he shows little knowledge of the local culture or geography.

A.Luke and A.Matthew copied the majority of G.Mark, while changing key elements to suit their differing audience and beliefs - not the sign or eye-witnesses, but of story-tellers. The Gospel of John tells a incompatible story - again showing that the Gospels are religious mythology, not history.


Notably, the Gospels and the bibliographic details of Jesus were seemingly unknown even to CHRISTIANS until early-mid 2nd century. Between the time of the Gospels and the events they allegedly describe lies two disastrous wars which saw the Tempe and its contents DESTROYED, Jerusalem razed, the Jews dispersed (those who survived), and the province of Judea erased from the map.


Regarding attribution, Aristides specifically says the "Gospel" - un-named and singular - had only been "preached a short time" in the 120s.
The first Gospel we have evidence of - Marcion's in the 140s - was also merely called the "Gospel".
Justin refers to them as un-named "Gospels" and also as the "memoirs of the apostles" - still un-named in the 150s. Only in the 180s does Irenaeus name the Gospels.


And the contents of the Gospels can all be found in the contemporary culture - the OT, wider Jewish beliefs, and pagan myth figures such as Osiris, Adonis, Attis, Iasius etc.

Which matches the fact that no contemporary writer had ever heard of Jesus or the Gospel events (e.g. Justus, Philo).


Finally, when the Gospels arose, they were attacked by knowledgeable pagans as FICTION based on myth (e.g. Celsus, and later Porphyry).


So,
your 66 bibliographic sources turn out to be essentially :
* ONE small book,
* unknown by Christians until a CENTURY after the alleged events,
* un-attributed until a century after the alleged events,
* written by an UNKNOWN anonymous author,
* who knew little about the time and place he wrote of,
* after 2 wars had destroyed records and population,
* which was criticised as FICTION when it arose,
* and based on previous mythology and scriptures,
* about a person who was unknown to contemporary writers.


And thats your "evidence" ?

Face it - the only reason you believe this fairy tale is because you are a Christian.

If you had grown up where the religion was Herculeanity, you would believe in Hercules and laugh off Jesus as a myth.


Iasion

Volker.Doormann

I think, it is pure academic to ride on that horse ‘historical Jesus’ (HJ).

All this arguing cannot remove some scriptures, which are written by historic individuals aware about what they wrote. These scriptures cite sayings and teachings, which are absolute independent of history. Christianity has nothing in common with these sayings and teachings; Christianity does follow Paul and his fantasies, which have also nothing in common with the sayings and teachings of the scriptures. It is not the prove of a lack of a historical Jesus which may change the supernatural fantasies of Christ’s. It is only the insight, understanding; knowledge and cognition about that, what the kernel of these sayings and teachings are, which can lead people to the cognition, that Christianity is a mistaken from the beginning (Paul). For this understanding, which is a very individual process in the consciousness a HJ is absolutely irrelevant. No one, neither from Christianity, nor one from outside of Christianity has shown, whether he can explain the meaning of the parables in those historic scriptures without contradiction. No one. But this is a fundamental prerequisite, to distinguish nonsense in those scriptures from sense. It is wasted time to hunt the phantom of Nazareth. It is more enlightened, to decipher those scriptures by learning the inner hidden meaning of that stuff, as it is explicit said. No one does need for this a HJ, nor a believe in a HJ. There is also no need to classify or declassify sects or cults from that time. Senseless. As all ancient myths, which are stories, parables about the sense of the life of each of us as individuals, one can find this also in that scriptures in that a Jesus is mentioned, and in that this figure give his statements to exact this theme. There is nothing to believe, but to understand. And this has absolutely nothing in common with religions, Christianity, church or historic facts. To acknowledge the truth in the saying, that the area of a square is two times the length of a side of a square, it is meaningless and irrelevant, whether this saying is stated by a historic mathematician from Sumer named ‘Squa_re’, or from a mythical figure from Greek.

Volker

Calzaer

You're absolutely right. I'll send you a free copy of the Book of Mormon so you can hurry up and be REALLY saved.

exnihilo

Interesting, I see you have nothing to say about the later point--the sheer ridiculousness of such rubbish.

There are a great many books about Sherlock Holmes and ragged dick--does that make them real. NO! Finally, to rely on a book thats sole purpose is control is a bit problematic don't ya think?

anti-X

Because Jesus only "exists" in the bible and biblical commentary.

Autonemesis

I have this picture in my head now of Bronze-Age goatherders encountering the Office paper-clip for the first time.

"It looks like you're writing down the Word of God, can I help you with that?"

Peter Kirby

This thread appears to be derailed. I would be interested in hearing from Jayjay (or someone else) in response to the post that I made at the top of this thread.

best,
Peter Kirby

Soul Invictus

Magus55?